Paul - thank you for your excellent summary. I agree on the non-verbal cues and impressions, especially in light of McCain's actions the last few weeks.

I disagree with your conclusions only slightly. I thought Barack was very Presidential, and that McCain wasn't... but I've thought that all along and more and more lately. Somehow, others seem to still like McCain as Presidential. I don't get that. But given that they do, I suspect they didn't change their minds either.

I think this debate presented few surprises and hence changed very few minds. So I think it was a wash.

I think it was pretty much a tie, as far as perfomece went, although if I hear McCain say one more time that Obama "just doesn't understand" I may go absolutely spare. What McCain doesn't understand is that he and Obama have two very differing world views and there are some things upon which they just don't have common ground (BTW - as far as I'm concerned, Obama's view is greatly preferable to McCain's)

But national security was supposed to be McCain's home turf. Granted, the economy took up a bit of the 90 minutes, but by not winning here, I think McCain lost by a nose. Obama has a far better grasp of domestic politics, so the next debate won't be so easy for McCain.

I thought Obama was fairly level headed and affable under a fairly grim, angry series of attacks. I was disappointed that he didn't hammer McCain about the economy and what it means for our future.

McCain's failure to even look at Obama after the handshake showed him for the old troll that he is in his own heart. It was petulant, dismissive and disrespectful and I bet there are going to be some comments about it from more than just me.

There was also something about his physical posture that said he was really angry.

If I was reading a transcript I would call it even. But having looked at it, I'd say that Obama took it by a narrow margin.

Stellaa, you sound bitter and shallow when you say things like that without giving your reasoning for why you are making those statements. I know from your many posts that you are capable of great depth.

Stellaa is indeed a much better and deeper thinker than that...

I pretty much agree with your assessment about the debate. Verbally, both of them made some good points, but neither scored a decisive knockout blow. Both lived to fight another day.

Obama came across as dignified, gracious, and held his own on foreign policy. NOT talking to other nations is insane. His body language showed him to be if not relaxed, (Who could relax in a presidential debate???) collected and in command. He was gracious and respectful while still giving McCain some neat digs. In short, I thought he definitely won the appearance and body language portion of the debate. And after all McCain's jabs about Iraq and Afghanistan, why didn't Obama mention his summer trip to both countries???

McCain really annoyed me with his scary smirk and his condescention. Looked pasty, lumpy and well... OLD. Refusing to look at Obama directly until the debate was well underway was RUDE. Shouldn't someone who's been in Washington for 26 years look and behave a bit more like an elder statesman? I do wish he would stop saying "What Senator Obama doesn't understand" in that patronizing way. I found him dismissive, rambling, and repetetive. In one answer, he managed to use the same phrase verbatim THREE TIMES! His campaign better start coaching him about that for the next two.

Favorite Parts:
"I know that means you don't just invite them over for tea." (On talking with rogue nations.)
Bringing up McCain's refusal to talk to Spain in the same segment. "He won't even talk to our NATO allies?"
"You're using an ax when you need a scalpel."
"You seem to think the War in Iraq started in 2007. The surge was necessary after four years of mismanagement."
"I have a bracelet too." Surgical disection of an obvious bid for a maudlin, tug-at-the-heartstrings mother of dead soldier story with a "bring them home already, enough is enough" message. BEAUTIFULLY done. =o)



Melissa

Obama continued to inspire, lead and clearly set the stage for the kind of educated and well thought out desicions he'd make as president. I could listen to him as president and feel proud that he was leading this country with dignity.

I traveled a lot and he's absolutely correct when he talks about restoring dignity and respect to America.

When I listened to McCain I wanted to scream. He comes across as narrow minded, arrogant and condescending and very determined to bring more wars. He scares and continues to scare me.

I suppose what I learned that's new is how much negativity and a dark view he has of the world. It's us or them like Bush, but carried much further. I've never been a fan of Bush. He doesn't come across as spiteful, not like McCain did tonight.

Curiously, I don't always agree with Stellaa's comments on other threads, but I agree with her here, so I'll take up the defense. McCain does not acknowledge the cost of the war. Obama knows it but didn't hammer it home. It was a great way to get the economic tie-in. It was an important part of the answer to what you'd cut to make your budget work in the nearterm given cash shortfalls.

The Republicans have consistently spun the war by using language that ignores cost. They say straight out to the Democrats, "Are you saying Iraq isn't better off?" or "Are you saying we haven't improved matters?" etc. Bush has at times sounded in his speeches like he's giving State of the Union address as President of Iraq, not President of the US. It's not that we're a chintzy country. It's that we simply can't afford to solve all the world's problems. People have beaten up Bush for the Mission Accomplished thing, but actually, if we had any business there (and that's obviously dubious), it really was done then. Our job was not to make them a great nation. Our job was to take out a dangerous dictator. And we did that. Then it morphed and we started to absorb the cost. Bush is like a gambler who didn't know how much he was prepared to lose before entering a casino, and so got caught up in the slipperiness of the game. He violated the Powell Doctrine on several points, ignoring his own advisors. And McCain is an enabler of the gambling, wanting to now to take over a hand that we have no business playing. He's so caught up in the fact that the hand seems good that he doesn't see that the entire visit to the casino is wrong and he doesn't see that the game is addictive.

Moreover, Barack didn't call him out on the obvious fact that he's still fighting the Viet Nam war. Now that's a touchy subject, and you can hardly blame Barack for it. It would be a live wire and he didn't need to win that one here. He was better off just walking away from the opportunity to gamble. He made a wise choice to just be tepid about this. That was a meta-victory and speaks very well of Obama. But it does contribute to the sense many of us have that Obama's performance was lackluster. Because we are the gamblers in this picture, so caught up in the debate game that we're not seeing the broader context. Obama didn't need to win this one, he knew it, and he played it right because his eye is on the long run strategy.

And even on the economic crisis itself, the game is in bargaining and compromising. That's not glamorous and doesn't lend itself to heroes saving the day. The heroes are the ones who can leave self out of it and just meet and work steadily to an end. That's a hard and boring message to bring to a debate. Obama maybe should have said that outright, but it still would have come out wishy washy, I bet.

So I feel what Stellaa appears to feel at some gut emotional level, I don't know if for all the same reasons. But at the same time, my rational mind says that the gut emotional level is focused on the wrong thing and I struggle to rise above it, hoping that I'm not just rationalizing a desire for my candidate to have won.

Oops. Darn. That came out longer than I'd meant it to. I'm sorry. I wish comments had a preview mode. These little edit boxes are awful and misleading as to size.

Kent,

Thoughtful as usual. I do see your point about what Obama didn't say. But there are an infinite number of things to say, and I don't think either of them would want to tip their party's hand or their own position before they can gather enough support for it. But because there is so much that could potentially be said, we can all fault any debate in one way or another. That's why I think we need to state the reasoning behind our opinions in this case.

For lack of a better term, McCain seems jumpy to me. His non-verbal cues make me feel anxious for him, whereas I find Barack to be extremely calming.

Great summary. Thx.

I thought McCain looked like an angry lawn ornament.

Paul, good post. Given that this debate was supposed give Sen McCain "home field advantage" I think he lost by not commanding. One post debate commentator said "This was McCain's wheelhouse, and the fact that Obama was even blow for blow puts him out on top." I'd have to agree.
But I came to a different conclusion, and I put it up in a short post of my own. I think the winner, if there was one, was Jim Leher. Let's hope we dont see any more "Tucker Carlson-Charles Gibson" kind of moderation in the few debates we have left.

McCain mispronouncing "Ahmadinejad" in that stuttering way felt like such a Bush flashback, I got the goosebumps.

Question for anybody who cares to respond-- When Obama agreed with something McCain said---he acknowledged the agreement.

Personally, I liked that. And from the perspective of good negotiating; it was a sound tactic.

But from a political or debate perspective---does that play?

I didn't like it, and like Stellaa, was disappointed in Obama's performance. I wanted him to hit harder.

However, he's not trying to convince me, or Stellaa. He's trying to win over wavering Republicans, Independents and right-leaning Democrats. I think he needed to take a middle-of-the-road tone here without sounding like a policy wonk. And in that, I think he was effective.

McCain did considerably better than I thought he would do. Given his propensity to misstatements, I was counting on some verbal flatulence from him and it didn't happen.

But he came across as angry and petulant at points, and that didn't play well with the CNN audiences at all.

In short, by not losing this debate, Obama won it, however indecisively.

Conspiracychic, what I took from McCain's stumbling on the pronunciation of Ahmadinejad is that he probably doesn't spend a lot of time talking about him, or doesn't care about pronouncing his name right--maybe he uses a nickname. So perhaps only recently did someone tell him he had to learn.

Chicago Guy, I wonder that a little too. I really like it when debaters stipulate to agreed points so no one has to dwell on them and so it's not so much like they're saying "anything you say I have to disagree with" (which is what I think McCain was doing a lot). I do wonder if the public doesn't see it as "me too" though. (Worse still if McCain is repeating something Obama said elsewhere and Obama comes across as saying "me too" to remarks he initiated. Not sure if that happened, but it was a risk.)

The Kennedy/Nixon debates were the first televised debates so the visual impact was that much more powerful. I have the feeling that for debates, at least, the pendulum has swung in the other direction by now. Bush has never seemed at ease on camera—— I thought for sure his shot at the presidency was done when I watched his deer in the headlights performance in debate with Al Gore. And yet even some liberal commentators have said Bush seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. Uh, personally I gag at the thought, but it seems that more people today put a premium on confrontation and the put down. I'm reassured by Obama's calm and confidence, but I think that he needs to be more surgical, tone down all the agreeing with his opponent (once per debate for graciousness, at most) and frankly, to Stelaa's point, he HAS to address the economic crisis with honest emotion that will connect with the viewer. I read over the beginning of the debate (some of which I missed) in transcript form and I realized I can't blame Stelaa for her disgust, though I can't be as dismissive of the debate on the whole. Their responses re. the economy were politics as usual, and that is shocking. If they gloss over what has been done to the Constitution in the last eight years I'm going to be seriously unhappy.

I wanted to see Obama really go after him, so I was a bit disappointed. I think McCain's pulsating clenched jaw lost him some composure points, though.

Jodi, it's that little barking grunt of disdain that reeaaally gets to me.

Jodi, I agree with you.

One approach Obama should change for the subsequent debates is not ask the moderator to referee - it's a weak move, because it surrenders your control of the floor. Instead, Obama should have interrupted, kept talking until McCain stopped, and made his point.

Still and all, Obama did come across much better than McCain.

This was my take on it too. I thought they both scored points and no one got knocked down. The difference in tone, delivery and demeanor were where I saw the separation. I LIKED that Obama could say "I think that's right" or "I agree". My thought was at least he had the dignity to not behave like a petulant child threatening to take his ball home if the others didn't let him win. I've never had a big issue with McCain before this election season, but I thought everything about him dripped disdain for Obama -- he didn't even seem to want to acknowledge his presence. It was weird, awkward and kinda lame, not to mention bad manners. There was a measure of "reasonableness" Obama was able to project just by his different demeanor. I could see how his manner (which I agree was Presidential) would appeal to someone who was on the fence.

Paul— yes, I forgot to mention Obama's ceding the floor when he needed counterpunch. I wanted him to finish his say, and I don't it would have compromised his looking Presidential. I always thought he has been the most presidential candidate we've had in years.

KH— I don't know if anyone has commented on this but I thought the disdain started right from the handshake. Obama seemed gracious and genuinely glad to see him and spoke some sort of greeting. McCain just gave him that cold smirk of a smile, which is really galling considering McCain hijacked the debate at the last minute and then posted ads declaring himself the premature winner.

Obama looked presidential when he was giving memorized soundbite versions of his stump speeches. His petulant attempts to interrupt McCain and stop him from getting his equal time continue to display his arrogance and weakness.

For all of MCain's grimacing while Obama spoke, he at least was smart enough to keep his mouth shut and not look like he was afraid to let the other guy talk.

Does anyone here remember the "America, Love it or Leave it!" bumper stickers? That same mean streak, that met such backlash in the 60's, seems to still be tatooed on McCain's heart and projected onto his face throughout the debate whether he likes it or not.

We've all known plenty of good ole boys that were full of humor as long as it was at someone else's expense. It's a reflection of their cruel & selfish hearts. It doesn't mean they don't have a soft spot in there, it's just harder to activate it I guess. You know, cut spending without regard for what needs to be done no matter how broke we are. Eight years is half of a sixteen year old's life. Cutting back on education can have lifelong devastating effects. McCain doesn't think that far, and that is part of his mean streak.

Thank you, Paul.
I actually felt sorry for McCain because he seemed really frightened, esp in the beginning. He was short of breath, coughed, and his voice was weak and tight. He picked it up when he started talking about war.
The undecided voters wait for those debates and that is what they decide upon. It's only political junkies like us who have been on the trail for two years almost, who know these men; the late deciders only began to pay attention. I think that Obama laid out as much detail as he could because these people who do not know him seek out information now in this format. For that, I think he did a good job.
Too bad they muddled the topics so that too little was said about the economy.
Obama has authority in his voice. "Enough!"

I was planning to make a similar observation to Marco's: Does no one remember how presidential Al Gore looked, and how hopeless his opponent?

Susanne, the Love It Or Leave It line seemed to reflect a notion that criticizing wasn't a way of loving. One would have thought that after all these years, they'd understand that caring enough to affect things is still loving something... especially since they're fond of chiding people about their health savings accounts and retirement accounts and then saying the what-amounts-to-tough-love they're offering is good for people. Such love, I guess, can only flow from authority down, not from citizens up (since they've forgotten citizens are the final authority in a democracy and so not only entitled but obliged to express displeasure with elected leaders even more often than they do). But yes, I agree, there seems to be such a subtext telegraphed (microwaved?) out in code to a certain audience that this old slogan is what's being violated.

Don’t you think there is a way to be calm, steady, presidential AND tough? I do. Obama looked tired and his debating style is neither deliberate nor fluid. His penchant to say “Look” every time he wants to make a point drives me to distraction. Stellaa may have been curt but frankly, I thought her comment was right on. I, too was struck by both of their failures to seize upon and exhibit some leadership about the most important issue of our time.

McCain was vintage (and I do mean vintage) McCain and he came across as arrogant and condescending. For the first time since I can’t remember when, I agree with George Will who said of John McCain, his temperament , with its “boiling moralism” and “impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events,” makes him “not suited to the presidency.” Obama should have found a way to shine a light on this character flaw. He also should have driven home the point that McCain has been all over the place on issues. McCain seems disoriented, off message and not able to exhibit any sense of leadership. Given the charge against Obama that he lacks experience, it would have behooved Obama to expose McCain’s wishy washy behavior.

I was very disappointed that Obama did not respond as he should have to McCain’s condescending comments of being naïve and “doesn’t understand.” Obama should have taken McCain to task when he said that Obama is not ready to be President. Wow, that was flat out disrespectful and a low blow. He would have been justified retaliating. The second thing that strikes me is that Obama debated McCain as if it was a primary debate. Did we not have six terrible years of Republican rule and a litany of failures? Last I checked, despite McCain’s desire to change history, he is still a full-fledged Republican and has voted with Republicans more than 80% of the time. It is a mistake to just tie McCain to Bush. There is SO MUCH objectionable about Republican politics. I just don’t get it. This is a sea change election year and people are looking for a charismatic and commanding leader. Debates typically are light on substance and heavy on style. Again, I agree with Stellaa, it was a pathetic and mediocre performance by both of them especially about the economic crisis.

It is hard to know if this debate changed anyone’s mind. If people were listening last night hoping to find a leader who can take control of the country’s economy, preserve our well-being, and restore confidence to the world community, I have to think they came away disappointed.

For me, the cool thing is contemplating the next debate. Who is going to improve more, based on the lessons they're taking home from the last one? If it was, in some senses, close to a tie, the one who improves more is going to look darn good.

Think it over.

In response to Chicago Guy's comment ( appears below my response):

I agree Chicago Guy - that it works well in a type of negotiating known as interest based bargaining/problem solving, which is taught at Harvard. I was never once comfortable with Obama's use of this phrase during the debate. I know he was aiming appear the more civil, well mannered of the two. I believe he could have accomplished that goal without using that phrase. I can imagine that those who are allegedly undecided will use it as an excuse to justify voting for the white guy. They may tell themselves that Obama admitted numerous times that McCain was right on many issues.

Chicago Guy wrote:

"Question for anybody who cares to respond-- When Obama agreed with something McCain said---he acknowledged the agreement. Personally, I liked that. And from the perspective of good negotiating; it was a sound tactic. But from a political or debate perspective---does that play? "

McGarrett - Obama looked "petulant" to you? Calling the real Steve McGarrett, who would' ve told Danno to book you, on charges of watching the debate through Republican-colored glasses ....

Looking presidential does not equate to having the experience to be president. Whereas Obama rattled off facts and figures as though he'd prepared for a college exam, McCain provided firsthand examples and experiences relating to foreign policy. Mere rhetoric is no substitute for actual knowledge and experience.

What was disappointing, in my view, of McCain was he was trying to drop a one liner that would stick, like Reagan's 'there you go again' line or 'you're no Jack Kennedy' but they all fell flat. And he seemed to pause after each one, waiting to see if he would get a laugh from the audience and it kind of brought about that painful cringe you have when a comedian bombs with a joke.

I also didn't like when he was condescending to Obama, especially when he tried to correct him on the term tactic and strategy, a nuance which has little bearing to the viewing audience and had little to do with the debate at the moment, which was on the effectiveness of the surge.

McCain would have been better served instead of saying stuff like "here is where Obama just doesn't understand X..." to a more congenial "here is another point on which Obama and I disagree, history has shown X or when I was meeting with Gorbachev it was shown and so on. Trying to make it seem like Obama isn't the sharpest tool in the shed is a little silly.

I also didn't like when Obama was kind of tooting his own horn...I can't stand when a politician says I was the first to do this or it was under my leadership we did X cause in 99% of the instances in politics it takes more than two to tango...

When watching the talking heads analyze the debate last night, one said McCain was much more knowledgable on Georgia and Russia's interest in the area because of his reference to the pipeline in Georgia. Hello, this is common knowledge. What's so special about that sound bite?

I agree with Melissa's take on this (not that I don't agree with others, but they way she summed it up is what I was going to say, for the most part).

McCain is a nasty human being. He's like the spoiled child who wills ay and do anything to get what he wants, while Obama is very intelligent, polite, and very astute. Obama clearly won the debate. He doesn't need a knockout punch in the form of putting McCain down, like McCain does to him, but he can do it with intelligence and truth and being very direct, which is what he did. He stood his ground and was very direct with what he said. This is what I love about Obama. He says it like it is while McCain wallers around in pig slop to lie.

I love how McCain kept saying that we need to get out of Iraq, yet he got mad and acted pissed toward the end of the debate when Obama kept pressing that issue. McCain DOESN'T want to get out of Iraq. He wants to stay there and is nothing but a liar when he says we need to get out. He wouldn't have gotten mad at Obama if he really does want to get out.

McCain is a pathetic liar. He's the cheap used car salesman while Obama is the astute scholar.

Allright! Paul, you fell for my hand grenade of using the word "petulant."

Everyone watches the debate through glasses of their own biases. Some of the folks here at OS are the worst.

Only a few people here have the guts to remember what has happened in the past. Bush beat Gore. Bush beat Kerry.

Americans don't like pedantic, wonkish politicians who get offended and whine when someone disagrees with them. Obama is as thin-skinned as they come and has the additional weakness of being an empty suit with no record of accomplishing anything.

His major attribute: Luck. He got elected to the Senate because his real opponent dropped out and the idiot Republicans put nut-case Alan Keyes on the ballot. He wins the primaries because his major opponent was Hillary and enough people just didn't want 24-28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Even if Edwards had somehow been Obama's opponent, he would have self-destructed from his adultery while wife dying scandal.

Obama is Chauncy Gardner.

Thank you for this chance to add my $.02; I think Mr Obama should have pointed up the fact that this war has caused many elements of the Constitution to become abridged/corrupted, and Mr. McCaine does not have the Constitutional creds to straighten it back out, to guarantee the rights originally set forth.
Twelve years as a teacher should be a HEAVY point, not to be bested by 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of another, arguably, illegal war.

First, I admit that I had to miss the last 25 minutes of the debate. However, in the first 35 I believe McCain came across as more attractive to average voters. He is mischievious, humorous and engaging. Also, he is direct and he can state in a convincing manner that he has far more experience and knowledge about international and miliatary affairs. Obama is not engaging or humorous. He is righteous and picky and these qualities turn people off. He is unable to strike his debate opponent hard. Voters still do not know who he really is and what he really believes. His record is certainly a mixed picture, avoiding voting on contentious issues, receiving financial benefit from a Chicago real estate crook, attending meetings with a former 60s radical and then lying about his actual degree of involvement with him, coming across as remarkably innocent and weak on dealing with Iran and those Muslims who are our enemies, going back on key promises to his constituents and political supporters and producing TV ads just as sleazy as McCain's. Whether I prefer his superior intelligence and knowledge or not he has big problems. I am not confident, despite the presence of Palin on McCain's ticket, that McCain will lose.

Judith wrote: "Mere rhetoric is no substitute for actual knowledge and experience."

Right. And Obama has knowledge that the Iraq war wrong from the very beginning, in contrast to McCain's knowledge which incorrectly led him to support and still support the war. Not to mention McCain's "knowledge" of economics, which led him to first say last week that our country's economic condition was strong.

McGarrett: calling Obama "petulant" was a grenade? (laughing) ... could've fooled me ... it was totally incorrect, and therefore a dud...

As for everyone wearing glasses ... the difference between mine and yours are that mine do not distort reality ... :)

Only kidding about that last point ... actually, only slightly...

amused_observer wrote: "I think Mr Obama should have pointed up the fact that this war has caused many elements of the Constitution to become abridged/corrupted, and Mr. McCaine does not have the Constitutional creds to straighten it back out, to guarantee the rights originally set forth.
Twelve years as a teacher should be a HEAVY point, not to be bested by 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of another, arguably, illegal war."

Good for you for making this point!

I agree - in fact, the Vietnam War was not "arguably illegal" - it was not declared, and therefore in violation of the Constitution, and therefore completely illegal, plain and simple. So, McCain became a prisoner because he was dropping bombs on people in a war which was not declared, and therefore illegal.

As if, of course, the current war in Iraq. (And, for that matter, in Afghanistan - which should be declared as required by our laws).

agreed.